You know the second definition of crusade in the online dictionary is "any war carried on under papal sanction."

Whatever. it seems we are splitting hairs because you are trying to compensate for the fact that your claim about Lepanto was more than six hundred years off.

What I tried to explain in the video was that Muslims were conquering and forcing their ways on people all over the place, in many nations , and chronically on the attack for hundreds of years.

Islamic aggression had to be fought for the survival of Europe , and Palestine was land that the Muslims had stolen.

When I keep hearing people talk about the Crusades or seeing something on TV, this is not addressed , and it should be. That was my point.

In school, teachers talked so much about Christian atrocities in the Dark Ages, but not about Islamic atrocities , and the fact that it is not the Dark Ages anymore, and the Muslims are still living like it is, ruining the lives of and robbing millions of people of basic liberties.

Yes they disgust me and they were ordered by the church not to do that.

It is Thoroughly nauseating.

However, that doesn't change the fact that if the Crusaders or anyone was to have liberated nations from Islam , those nations would have far more freedom to this day.

Imagine all the woman who could vote, Drive, get an education, dress the way they want to, not get stoned to death, all the hands and heads that would not be chopped off, all the car bombs that would not be going off.

Trying to stop Muslims from doing that ,even if it isn't a Christian movement, is a very noble cause. One of the first steps is to know the truth and speak the truth.

You know the second definition of crusade in the online dictionary is "any war carried on under papal sanction."

Whatever. it seems we are splitting hairs because you are trying to compensate for the fact that your claim about Lepanto was more than six hundred years off.

What I tried to explain in the video was that Muslims were conquering and forcing their ways on people all over the place, in many nations , and chronically on the attack for hundreds of years.

Islamic aggression had to be fought for the survival of Europe , and Palestine was land that the Muslims had stolen.

When I keep hearing people talk about the Crusades or seeing something on TV, this is not addressed , and it should be. That was my point.

In school, teachers talked so much about Christian atrocities in the Dark Ages, but not about Islamic atrocities , and the fact that it is not the Dark Ages anymore, and the Muslims are still living like it is, ruining the lives of and robbing millions of people of basic liberties.

As I said, a single "just" battle can justify only itself. It cannot justify any other conflict just because you use the same word to describe it. A war fought in Judea by European forces is a war of conquest, not a defensive war. That's what most of the crusades were.

You know the second definition of crusade in the online dictionary is "any war carried on under papal sanction."

Whatever....

You have to admit, when anyone read your question "Were the Crusades not a response to Islamic aggression and muslims using violence to steal land that didn't belong to them?" most people were probably not going to think you meant this very loose definition of "crusade" and would probably think of the 400 year period of Papal sanctioned wars to conquer the Holy Land known as "The Crusades".

Deciding that you really meant a specific battle that took place after most people mark the end of the Crusades but which was under papal sanction (and which apparently some historian has termed "a crusade") is kind of changing boats mid-stream don't you think? How was anyone supposed to know?

You have to admit, when anyone read your question "Were the Crusades not a response to Islamic aggression and muslims using violence to steal land that didn't belong to them?" most people were probably not going to think you meant this very loose definition of "crusade" and would probably think of the 400 year period of Papal sanctioned wars to conquer the Holy Land known as "The Crusades".

Deciding that you really meant a specific battle that took place after most people mark the end of the Crusades but which was under papal sanction (and which apparently some historian has termed "a crusade") is kind of changing boats mid-stream don't you think? How was anyone supposed to know?

Even the Crusades in Egypt or for the Holy Land were in response to Muslim aggression. So, when Hitler conquered France, what if He holds France for a long time before an invasion of Normandy...

Could we deny that the Allied invasion to reclaim France was a response to Nazi aggression?